TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 521
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of account. The assessee has also filed details of the personal transactions and submitted that the cash balance as on 31-03-2013 is Rs.9,49,500. Since sufficient cash balance is available, according to the ld.representative, there is no justification for making addition of Rs.99,752. 4. On the contrary, Smt.S Vijayaprabha, the ld.DR submitted that the details of personal transactions and the cash flow statement were not filed before the assessing officer. Since it was filed before the Tribunal an opportunity may be given to the assessing officer to examine the funds. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee claimed that cash balance of Rs.9,49,500 was also available as on 31-03-2003; therefore, sufficient cash balance is available with the assessee for making a deposit of Rs.99,052 in the personal account of the assessee maintained with SBT. As rightly submitted by the ld.DR, the assessing officer has not examined the availability of the cash balance as on 31-03-2003. The lower authorities found that the so-called deposit was not included in the net wealth statement filed by the assessee before the assessing off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee submitted that the assessee has sold trees which were grown spontaneously for which there is no cost of acquisition. Therefore, the entire amount has to be treated as not taxable. For this proposition, the ld.representative has placed reliance on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in CIT vs Suman Tea & Plywood Industries (P) Ltd (1997) 226 ITR 34 (Cal); Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT vs B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) and the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs E.C. Jacob (1973) 89 ITR 88 (Ker) affirmed in 128 ITR 294 (SC). 10. On the contrary, Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, the ld.DR submitted that admittedly, the trees were grown spontaneously. The judgments referred to by the ld.representative for the assessee are in respect of business concerns and not in respect of trees grown spontaneously. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh vs CIT (1957) 32 ITR 587 (SC), the ld.DR submitted that when the trees are sold, which are grown spontaneously, the receipt of the same has to be taxed as casual and non recurring income of the assessee. 11. We have considered the rival submis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inion that the Calcutta High Court judgment in the case of Suman Tea & Plywood Industries (P) Ltd (supra) may be squarely applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore, the sale of trees grown spontaneously has to be treated as capital in nature and since there is no cost of acquisition, it is not liable for taxation as found by the Calcutta High Court. Accordingly, the assessee succeeds on this ground. 13. Now coming to the appeal for assessment year 2006-07, the first issue is with regard to addition of Rs.1,03,396 as other income. This ground is akin to the ground raised for assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06. While dealing with the issue for assessment years 2003-04 to 2005- 06, we have already remitted the issue back to the file of the assessing officer. Since the issue is identical and the facts and circumstances are also same, we direct the assessing officer to reconsider the issue on the lines of directions already issued for assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06. 14. The next ground of appeal is with regard to estimation of agricultural income. The assessee claimed agricultural income of Rs. 11,59,247. However, the assessing officer disallowed Rs.8,35,092 based on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee claims that he is maintaining the books of account for cultivation, without finding fault with the books of account maintained for cultivation, estimation of agricultural income may not be justified. Therefore, if at all there was any defect in the books of account, it is for the assessing officer to reject the same after examination and thereafter resort to estimation, if required. But without examining the books of account, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that on the basis of the data collected from the Agricultural Officer, the profit cannot be estimated. Accordingly, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re- considered. Hence, the orders of lower authorities are set aside and the issue is remitted back to the file of the assessing officer. The assessing officer shall consider the books of account said to be maintained by the assessee for agricultural income and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. We make it clear that it is open to the assessing officer to reject the books of account in case the books of account are not properly maintained or any oth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ters of Kerala. Tourists from different parts of the world arrive and use the building for personal needs and food is served in the building before boating and after boating. The building would also be used after the boating. According to the ld.representative, the kitchen in the building is used for cooking foods for tourists. According to the ld.representative, the assessing officer rejected the claim of depreciation on the ground that rental income was not received during the year. When the building was used for business of the assessee for cooking food for the tourists as also for the use of the tourists before and after boating, according to the ld.representative, the building is used for business; hence, entitled for depreciation. 21. On the contrary, Smt. Vijayaprabha, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee claimed that the building was constructed during the first half of the accounting year and the same was completed during the second half of the accounting year under consideration. No income was disclosed from the building. Therefore, according to the ld.DR, the building was not put to use for the purpose of business. According to the ld.DR, unless the building was put ....